Underground parks in cramped cities
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/solar-technology-could-make-underground-parks-cramped-cities-possible
Should pregnant women be treated like injured workers?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/opinion/women-who-work.html?referrer=
Should we rely on private money to ensure public goods like parks? Why or why not?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/opinion/the-billionaires-park.html?referrer=
Should pregnant women be treated like injured workers?
ReplyDeletehttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/opinion/women-who-work.html?referrer=
After reading the article, I believe that the "just action" to take is what UPS has done subsequent to the law suit, in that, a pregnant person is given the same consideration for lighter duty responsibilities. I think it is important for large companies, unions, associations, etc. to periodically review their policies to see how it aligns with the values and beliefs. I attribute this back to stakeholder responsibility. I personally do believe that pregnant women should be give the same opportunities as an injured person. What did strike me as very odd was that UPS had a policy for an employee who had received a DUI - but not pregnancy?
Should we rely on private money to ensure public goods like parks? Why or why not?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/opinion/the-billionaires-park.html?referrer=
I think this article talks about a multitude of things, from wealth and prestige, the gap between the wealthy and middle to lower class (have's and have not's), political privilege and sway and finally the crux of the matter - taxing at the wealth on capital gains and at a higher tax.
While I don't see anything wrong with more green space and parks, it is troubling that the "money" can buy anything. If the parks were truly philanthropically motivated - to provide green space and parks to all area's for all to enjoy - that would be the true test. But according to the article, while they may be a public space/park, they "really" aren't for the middle to lower class, unless you are a tourist passing through. So, should we rely on private money to ensure public goods like parks - only if a disinterested party dictates where the money goes and divides the funds to zoo's and parks throughout the states,cities, districts, etc - for all to enjoy equally - no matter the social status.
I am shocked that UPS is so behind in the times when it comes to women in the workplace. This is every woman right if she choose to bare a child and she should not be penalized for doing so. This is a temporary condition to help ensure that a women have safety precautions and a healthy baby. How is it that someone can lose their license temporarily for driving while being intoxicating get light duty work but a there is nothing for a woman being with child, just ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Young and other worker in her condition should form a class action law suit against UPS and the United Postal Service and other carrier companies that operate under those old policies. Once again we need to star holding these people and companies accountable for their wrongful actions.
Should we rely on private money to ensure public goods like parks? Why or why not?
ReplyDeletehttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/opinion/the-billionaires-park
I feel private and public funding should be used on goods like parks because everybody utilizes them for all kinds of occasions. Since private companies pay lower taxes they should be able to contribute more financially. It a good concept to beautify sustainable green space in low income neighborhoods. This will open up new dwellings and businesses which will begin to bring more revenue to these areas. Why is it because certain places are considered to be low income they have to look like slums? We focus on no child left behind...let's start with their neighborhood being left behind as well. I believe if corporations were to work together to enrich all communities it would be a win-win for everyone. These parks would generate not just money by tourism but also rebuilding surrounding communities like the more elite cities/towns.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShould pregnant women be treated like injured workers?
ReplyDeletehttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/opinion/women-who-work.html?referrer=
This article draws my attention away from UPS, and makes me think more about the concerned citizenry. It does not surprise me that companies, organizations, and the government have many seemingly archaic policies. I am sure there are also many that have highly progressive policies.
In reading the article it appears to me that UPS has agreed to change, but reserves the right to do as it wishes. So is this really change? Here is the quote that leads me to believe this, "It is good that, beginning on Jan. 1, pregnant U.P.S. employees will be treated better. But the notion that the better treatment is optional should not be allowed to stand."
UPS is one particular issue, but the bigger picture is what concerns me. We all need to be better citizens, and educate ourselves on government and issues. Our federal judiciary is often the decision maker on issues like this. Federal judges are appointed by the president, and their appointment is for life. The Fourth Circuit court actually rejected Ms. Young's case by claiming that it gave pregnant women preferential treatment. This gave UPS a legal out, and it also allowed UPS to deny any legal liability for damages. Sounds like somebody was on UPS's side to me....
You better believe that UPS is lobbying for politicians and judges that will support its position. As a "concerned citizenry" we should do the same thing. The system is working for the corporations, but is it working for you? To all the ladies in the class, I suggest you read the follow up article that is linked at the bottom of the original article.
Ethically I see this being inline with Sennett's consumerism argument. Most people will know more about the latest episode of "The Voice" than they will about anything to do with Ms. Young's case, or the fact that the case even exists.
Underground parks in cramped cities
ReplyDeletehttp://www.iflscience.com/technology/solar-technology-could-make-underground-parks-cramped-cities-possible
Should we rely on private money to ensure public goods like parks? Why or why not?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/opinion/the-billionaires-park.html?referrer=
The first article proposes an unusual concept. Underground parks just might work in overcrowded cities. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw entire floors of high rise buildings become park like. Green spaces were usually reserved for the roof tops, but why not try something different. There is currently a movement in modern building and design techniques that include all sorts of "living" features.
At the moment I do not see any major ethical issues with the underground parks. They appear to be very expensive, and the funding is mostly coming from the private sector. I do wonder how the developing company "Lowline" intends on managing the park and its access. According to the article, the planned use includes the entire community. We will see. The park seems like a great platform for experimenting with new technologies and methods.
The second article raises many of the ethical questions that are absent from the first article. I do not have a problem with private funding for parks. We have strangled the governments ability for non-discretionary spending on things like public parks because of the massive tax cuts given to the rich over the last few decades. I say lets let them spend some of the money they saved. I do believe that these privately funded parks need to be open to the entire public. The issue is accessibility and usability. How do the poor get to the fancy parks in the rich neighborhoods, and what good are the fancy features of these parks to the poor? I really like the proposition in the last paragraph of the article. It would require private groups to also help fund park rehabilitation in poor neighborhoods. Ensuring access and also helping with the poorer parks would satisfy many ethical concerns. Kant will be happy, utility will be satisfied, and it oozes virtue.
I found this interesting quote in the comments section of the second article: "Perhaps much of the acrimony on this topic has to do with the subtle difference between "Philanthropy" and "Charity." Philanthropy is usually reserved for the very wealthy and is frequently but not always accompanied by significant tax savings as well as public recognition (i.e. public award ceremonies, names emblazoned on buildings etc.) Charity, in it's truest form, seeks nothing in return, is frequently anonymous, smaller in monetary value and in many cases, comes not from excess funds but rather exacts a toll on the donor."
Maureen
Upstate, NY
Dec. 1, 2014 at 12:10 p.m.
I think that quote is also interesting. Philanthropy often has a "snooty" feeling to it, while charity seems much more genuine. Maybe because philanthropy is too often tied to PR. That said, giving is always good, but in my opinion, giving for the right reason is always better.
Delete
ReplyDeleteIt seems odd to me that a large business such as UPS would have such antiquated policies in place. Pregnancy is a “condition” that all companies need to have a fair, systematic answer for. I say condition because that is how UPS seems to categorize it. Obviously, as a mother, and someone who has been pregnant during my professional career, I think UPS is being totally ridiculous. However, from strictly a business, dollar for dollar standpoint I can almost see the UPS side. “U.P.S. claims it has a legal right to deny pregnant workers who have temporary physical limitations the flexibility it shows workers with other conditions that similarly affect the tasks they are able to perform.” Technically, they are correct. At the end of the day, personal side not included, the fact is the employee cannot do the job. Someone else will now need to fill in for the pregnant worker. If they continue to pay both employees, this is an expensive issue. Especially considering, if every women who works for UPS becomes pregnant at one time or another.
Again, obviously, I am a mother and do have compassion for any women who wants to extend her family, but I do see the business side as well. I would hope that for UPS’s sake, (and other companies) that the value of the employee (when able to do the job) outweigh the extended cost of the pregnancy. I hope the relationship is beneficial to both mother and company.
I am glad that UPS now has a policy in place to prevent an issue like this from arising in the future. I would hope any company that doesn't have their “ducks in a row” will learn from this as well.
I am in disbelief as to why UPS thinks this was a good idea? Why does UPS think that it is ok to have protections for those who have DUIs and not for the pregnant women? This seems very unethical to me and I can not seem to wrap my mind around why this is ok. I tried to find the follow up article on the Supreme Court hearing and could not find it! If I was a young woman that worked for UPS and having a family in the future was in my plans I would definitely be looking for a new job. However, I have a friend in where this just happened to her. She works for Amazon. Her doctor put her on light duty and they were not able to accommodate the doctor orders so they put her on unpaid leave. WHY IS THIS OK? I just do not understand. There has to be something these workers can do. So while UPS might be in the spot light for this there are other companies that have similar situations.
ReplyDeleteUPS- I am just baffled that at this point women are still being denied any sort of benefit for pregnancy. I can't relate to the "business" side of things for this. Would you like women to stop having children? Would that help your company? Women are sacrificing their bodies in order to bring life into this world and there is no compassion for that. I understand that some people take advantage of benefits offered, but that is with ANY type of benefit offered. Discrimination can apply to more than race, age, etc etc.
ReplyDeleteIn a world that consistently discriminates against women, where women are still a commodity to be bought and sold in some countries, it really doesn't surprise me that we are still discriminated against in our own country. I mean really we just had a bunch of misogynistic morons on the supreme court vote down their female counterparts in favor of unwanted pregnancy in the name of "Christianity." I know I am a Christian, but I also believe God gave us free will and enough brains to know when we don't need any more children. Women are still treated as the weaker, less important sex. Yes we are "breaking the glass ceiling" blah blah blah. But women are still paid less as a whole and have fewer rights then men. I mean really they choose the process of giving life to another below someone who decides to break the law and drive drunk. It says something about your lack of character when you can draft policies like this. I have been trying to see what the courts decided but have yet to find anything. What blows my mind is that I can hurt my back and be put on a lighter detail and still have a job but I decide to sprout life from my body and you want to put me on unpaid leave? No thank you! Yet another company that will not get my business or my families. Man I am starting to dislike these blogs, next thing on the docket to discuss is my hatred of the circus. This is why I avoid the news. I get to frustrated.
ReplyDeleteShould pregnant women be treated like injured workers?
ReplyDeletehttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/opinion/women-who-work.html?referrer=
I actually just had a pregnant wife just over a year ago and in no way should she have been treated like an injured worker. I know that people have sympathy for pregnant women in the workforce not because they feel sorry for them but more so because they feel bad that they are uncomfortable.
If I even heard that someone talked down to my wife due to her being pregnant we would have issues, hell I would probably roll up in her work about to go off on someone. Even while my wife was pregnant she still was the top producer at her office with the number of phone calls that she took over other pharmacist that had the same job so she shouldn't be treated differently.
Now I actually witnessed someone treating a woman with no respect when she was pregnant. The president of my last company had no sympathy for a woman who was pregnant in our office. She took a lot of breaks as she got further along and often showed up to work late and left early because she wasn't feeling well. He would either dock her vacation/paid time off hours or take away pay and also get onto her when she was late saying that she can't use that as an excuse. But you would have to know this guys demeanor in order to understand. He never wanted anyone to take a day off, he actually questioned me time and time again when my wife had to go to the doctor and wanted me to go.
In no way is this right! I actually said something to him one time when he got onto me for leaving. Then he proceeded to say he was joking with me and in no way did I take that as a joke.
Hi Nate, your last boss kinda stunk. I think one of the bigger issues here is that the job she was in was not safe for the baby or her. She shouldn't be lifting heavy boxes while she is pregnant because it could hurt her or her child. That is what makes this such an outrageous case. I worked at a vet clinic when I got pregnant and my duties were drastically changed or reduced as I could no longer assist in the surgery room, x-ray room, or cat house. As it went on it was difficult for me to justify being yanked around by 150 lb Rottweilers while already being off balance so, we parted ways with an invitation to come back after the baby was born. I went on to get a desk job that I was literally fired from for being pregnant. The boss said he could not handle my pregnancy brain, and morning sickness. We just don't rank to a lot of bosses which sucks but it's true.
Delete